The potential jurors in the explosive securities-fraud case are being asked to reveal their inner thoughts about the domestic diva in closed-door sessions to enable the judge to weed out those who appear biased.

But with so many people well versed on Stewart’s tangle with the feds, Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum has admitted to lawyers it’s a “big problem” trying to find jurors who will base their verdict purely on evidence presented in the court, the transcripts reveal.

After one woman, who works on a securities-trading desk, was excused from jury duty Tuesday, she looked across the room at Stewart and said, “I am a huge fan of yours. Good luck.”

Another potential juror was sent home when he told the judge his wife was “unfairly” fired from Stewart’s company, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia – even though he claimed the incident wouldn’t affect his impartiality.

After two days of grilling more than 60 potential jurors, the judge has identified more than 20 people who she believes are suited to judge whether Stewart and her stockbroker Peter Bacanovic are guilty of conspiring to obstruct a federal investigation into her sale of almost 4,000 ImClone shares a day before they declined dramatically in value.

The judge wants to identify a total of 50 suitable candidates, before whittling the pool down to the final dozen who will make up the jury.

Stewart, 62, who faces up to 30 years in prison if convicted of five federal counts, arrived at Manhattan federal court for the second day of jury selection in a Mercedes, dressed stylishly in a gray cashmere trench coat, worn over a black leather jacket and gray woolen pants.

But the $12,000 Hermes handbag she swung on her arm when arriving at the court Tuesday was nowhere to be seen when she marched up the steps to the click of photographers.

A similar looking accessory re-appeared later, however, when she settled at the defense table in the camera-free courtroom.

The transcripts, which are released a day after the juror-questioning sessions are held, also pointed to some of the witnesses expected to be called to testify.

HER PEERS SPEAK

Here are some exhanges between the judge and some prospective jurors:

Judge to prospective juror 36, a man who works in the securities trading business: “When did your wife leave MSLO (Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia)?”

Juror: “I believe she was terminated September 1996.”

Judge: “All right. She did not resign?”

Juror: “She was unfairly fired due to a maternity . . . a maternity leave problem.”

Judge: “Is there anything about that experience that would affect your ability in this case to reach a fair impartial verdict?”

Judge to prospective juror 108, a woman who works as a psychoanalyst: “When you say, “I’m a fan of Martha Stewart,” what do you mean?”

Juror: “I own a lot of Martha Stewart stuff. I think that she has been a very strong and powerful role model for a lot of women in our society.”

Judge: “The question is, Do those views or will those views affect your ability to reach a verdict in this case based solely not on what you know from outside the courtroom, but on the evidence presented in the courtroom.”

Juror: “You know, if I’m going to be completely honest . . . I can’t say I would totally be able to separate it, but certainly I would try.”

The juror was dismissed.

Judge to prospective juror 17, a middle-aged man: “I see that you have said that you do not trust Martha Stewart?”

Juror: “Did I say that? . . . I don’t remember saying that, but if that’s what I wrote [on the juror questionnaire].”

Judge: “I would like you to explain to me. . .”

Juror: “Maybe I’m sorry I said it.”

Judge: “But you must have had something in mind…”

Juror: “Sometimes people that are – that are powerful are not so trustworthy . . . Rich, rich powerful people, yes.”